Dataset Information

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir in adult patients with severe COVID-19: study protocol for a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel corinavirus (later named SARS-CoV-2 virus), was fistly reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China towards the end of 2019. Large-scale spread within China and internationally led the World Health Organization to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30^th January 2020. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 virus infection include asymptomatic infection, mild upper respiratory symptoms, severe viral pneumonia with respiratory failure, and even death. There are no antivirals of proven clinical efficacy in coronavirus infections. Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue, has inhibitory effects on animal and human highly pathogenic coronaviruses, including MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, in in vitro and in vivo experiments. It is also inhibitory against the COVID-19 virus in vitro. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of remdesivir in adult patients with severe COVID-19.

Methods

The protocol is prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. This is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Adults (≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 virus infection, severe pneumonia signs or symptoms, and radiologically confirmed severe pneumonia are randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenously administered remdesivir or placebo for 10 days. The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement (censored at day 28), defined as the time (in days) from randomization of study treatment (remdesivir or placebo) until a decline of two categories on a six-category ordinal scale of clinical status (1 = discharged; 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital. One interim analysis for efficacy and futility will be conducted once half of the total number of events required has been observed.

Discussion

This is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial in COVID-19. Enrolment began in sites in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on 6^th February 2020.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04257656. Registered on 6 February 2020.

SUBMITTER: Wang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7245636 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNo specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ?18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.FindingsBetween Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.InterpretationIn this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.FundingChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.

Project description:PurposeA hallmark of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to pulmonary vascular hyperpermeability. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib reversed pulmonary capillary leak in preclinical studies and improved clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We investigated the effect of intravenous (IV) imatinib on pulmonary edema in COVID-19 ARDS.MethodsThis was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Invasively ventilated patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS were randomized to 200 mg IV imatinib or placebo twice daily for a maximum of seven days. The primary outcome was the change in extravascular lung water index (∆EVLWi) between days 1 and 4. Secondary outcomes included safety, duration of invasive ventilation, ventilator-free days (VFD) and 28-day mortality. Posthoc analyses were performed in previously identified biological subphenotypes.Results66 patients were randomized to imatinib (n = 33) or placebo (n = 33). There was no difference in ∆EVLWi between the groups (0.19 ml/kg, 95% CI - 3.16 to 2.77, p = 0.89). Imatinib treatment did not affect duration of invasive ventilation (p = 0.29), VFD (p = 0.29) or 28-day mortality (p = 0.79). IV imatinib was well-tolerated and appeared safe. In a subgroup of patients characterized by high IL-6, TNFR1 and SP-D levels (n = 20), imatinib significantly decreased EVLWi per treatment day (- 1.17 ml/kg, 95% CI - 1.87 to - 0.44).ConclusionsIV imatinib did not reduce pulmonary edema or improve clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. While this trial does not support the use of imatinib in the general COVID-19 ARDS population, imatinib reduced pulmonary edema in a subgroup of patients, underscoring the potential value of predictive enrichment in ARDS trials. Trial registration NCT04794088 , registered 11 March 2021. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number: 2020-005447-23).

Project description:IntroductionWe evaluated the anti-interleukin-36 receptor antibody spesolimab in patients with moderate-to-severe palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP).MethodsThis phase IIb trial comprised a loading dose period to week (W) 4, then maintenance dosing to W52. Patients were randomised 2:1:1:1:2 to subcutaneous spesolimab 3000 mg to W4 then 600 mg every 4 weeks (q4w), spesolimab 3000 mg to W4 then 300 mg q4w, spesolimab 1500 mg to W4 then 600 mg q4w, spesolimab 1500 mg to W4, 300 mg q4w to W16 then 300 mg every 8 weeks (q8w), or placebo switching to spesolimab 600 mg q4w at W16. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change from baseline in Palmoplantar Pustular Area and Severity Index (PPP ASI) at W16. Secondary endpoints included a Palmoplantar Pustular Physician's Global Assessment (PPP PGA) score of 0/1. Safety (including adverse events [AEs], local tolerability) was assessed.Results152 patients were treated. The primary endpoint was not met; mean differences for spesolimab versus placebo ranged from - 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 31.5%, 2.2%) to - 5.3% (95% CI: - 19.1%, 8.6%); none reached significance. At W16, 23 (21.1%) and two (4.7%) patients in the combined spesolimab and placebo groups, respectively, achieved PPP PGA 0/1 (mean difference 16.4%; 95% CI: 3.8%, 25.7%), increasing to 59 (54.1%; combined spesolimab) and 12 (27.9%; placebo switch to spesolimab) patients at W52. Non-Asian patients had significant improvements in the primary endpoint (mean difference - 17.7%; nominal P = 0.0394) and PPP PGA 0/1 at W16 with spesolimab versus placebo. Rates of AEs and AE-related discontinuations were similar for spesolimab and placebo. Local tolerability events and injection-site reactions were more frequent with spesolimab than placebo.ConclusionThe primary objective to demonstrate a non-flat dose-response relationship and proof-of-concept was not achieved; improvements with spesolimab occurred in secondary endpoints and in non-Asian patients, indicating potential modest benefits. Spesolimab was generally well tolerated (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04015518).

Project description:BackgroundTrimodulin (human polyvalent immunoglobulin [Ig] M ~ 23%, IgA ~ 21%, IgG ~ 56% preparation) has previously been associated with a lower mortality rate in a subpopulation of patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and with clear signs of inflammation. The hypothesis for the ESsCOVID trial was that trimodulin may prevent inflammation-driven progression of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to critical disease or even death.MethodsAdults with severe COVID-19 were randomised to receive intravenous infusions of trimodulin or placebo for 5 consecutive days in addition to standard of care. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of clinical deterioration (Days 6-29) and 28-day all-cause mortality (Days 1-29).ResultsOne-hundred-and-sixty-six patients received trimodulin (n = 84) or placebo (n = 82). Thirty-three patients died, nine during the treatment phase. Overall, 84.9% and 76.5% of patients completed treatment and follow-up, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was reported in 33.3% of patients on trimodulin and 34.1% of patients on placebo (P = 0.912). No differences were observed in the proportion of patients recovered on Day 29, days of invasive mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit-free days. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable. A post hoc analysis was conducted in patients with early systemic inflammation by excluding those with high CRP (> 150 mg/L) and/or D-dimer (≥ 3 mg/L) and/or low platelet counts (< 130 × 109/L) at baseline. Forty-seven patients in the trimodulin group and 49 in the placebo group met these criteria. A difference of 15.5 percentage points in clinical deterioration and mortality was observed in favour of trimodulin (95% confidence interval: -4.46, 34.78; P = 0.096).ConclusionAlthough there was no difference in the primary outcome in the overall population, observations in a subgroup of patients with early systemic inflammation suggest that trimodulin may have potential in this setting that warrants further investigation. ESSCOVID WAS REGISTERED PROSPECTIVELY AT CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ON OCTOBER 6, 2020.: NCT04576728.

Project description:BackgroundSevere eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (ECRSwNP) remains the most relapsed subtype of uncontrolled CRSwNP. CM310, a humanised anti-interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling which underlying eosinophilic inflammation. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CM310 in patients with severe ECRSwNP.MethodsA multicentre, randomised, double-blind, and placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial was conducted. 56 eligible adult patients with severe ECRSwNP were randomised 1:1 to receive subcutaneously either CM310 (300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks under the background therapy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) for 16 weeks, with 8 weeks of follow-up. Coprimary endpoints included the changes from baseline in nasal polyp score (NPS) and nasal congestion score (NCS) at week 16. Key secondary endpoints included sinus Lund-Mackay CT score, change in sinus volume occupied by disease, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test score, 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test score, and total symptom score. Safety, pharmacodynamics, and changes in type 2 inflammation biomarkers were assessed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04805398.FindingsBetween April 6, 2021, and March 18, 2022, 27 patients respectively in both the CM310 and placebo groups completed the study. Findings suggested that CM310 improved the coprimary efficacy endpoints of decreasing nasal polyp size and alleviating nasal congestion compared with the placebo. Least squares (LS) mean differences (CM310 vs placebo) of change from baseline in NPS and NCS at week 16 were -2.1 (95% CI -2.9, -1.4; p < 0.0001) and -0.9 (95% CI -1.4, -0.5; p < 0.0001), respectively. Sinus CT scan revealed that Lund-Mackay CT score (LS mean difference [95% CI] -7.6, [-9.4, -5.8]; p < 0.0001) and sinus volume occupied by disease (LS mean difference [95% CI] -37%, [-47%, -28%]; p < 0.0001) were significantly improved with CM310 compared with placebo. In addition, CM310 significantly relieved the daily symptoms of patients with CRSwNP and improved their quality of life reflected by the improvements in the TSS (-2.6 [95% CI -3.5, -1.6]), UPSIT (10.4 [95% CI 6.8, 14.0]) and SNOT-22 score (-19.1 [95% CI -29.8, -8.5]). Compared with placebo, CM310 administration significantly reduced type 2-related biomarkers including the serum TARC and total IgE, and tissue eosinophils. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection, blood cholesterol increased, and tinnitus, but none were considered drug-related.InterpretationThese findings support CM310 as an effective additional treatment option to the standard of care in patients with severe ECRSwNP.FundingKeyMed Biosciences (Chengdu) Limited.

Project description:BackgroundZapnometinib is an oral, non-ATP-competitive, small-molecule inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2 with immunomodulatory and antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of zapnometinib in patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial, we recruited hospitalised adults with moderate or severe COVID-19 from 18 hospitals in Germany, India, Romania, South Africa, and Spain. Those requiring ICU admission or ventilator support at screening or randomisation were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral zapnometinib (900 mg on Day 1; 600 mg on Days 2-6) or matching placebo, on top of standard of care. Randomisation, stratified by baseline clinical severity status (CSS 3 or 4, measured on a 7-point ordinal scale), was done using Interactive Response Technology. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was CSS at Day 15 and was conducted on the full analysis set (FAS: all patients who were randomised to the study, received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-dose assessment of CSS, as randomised). Safety analyses were conducted on the safety analysis set (all study participants who received at least one dose of study medication, as treated). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04776044) and EudraCT (2020-004206-59).FindingsThe trial was terminated early as the emergence of the Omicron variant impacted recruitment. Between 12th April 2021 and 9th August 2022, 104 of the planned 220 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 103 were treated, and 101 were included in the FAS (zapnometinib: n = 50; placebo: n = 51). The primary outcome was not significantly different between the two groups, but patients on zapnometinib had higher odds of improved CSS versus placebo (odds ratio [OR] 1.54 [95% CI 0.72-3.33]; p = 0.26). Predefined subgroup analyses identified trends for improved CSS in patients with severe disease at baseline (OR 2.57 [0.76-8.88]; p = 0.13) and non-Omicron variants (OR 2.36 [0.85-6.71]; p = 0.10); the p value of the CSS subgroup by Treatment interaction term in the model was p = 0.28. The frequency and intensity of adverse events was low and similar between arms. Twenty (39.2%) patients treated with zapnometinib experienced adverse events compared with eighteen (34.6%) patients treated with placebo. One patient receiving zapnometinib and two patients receiving placebo died during the study. None of the deaths were considered related to study medication.InterpretationThese results provide proof-of-concept for the innovative approach of targeting the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway in patients with hospitalised moderate/severe COVID-19. Further clinical studies will be required to evaluate the clinical benefit of zapnometinib in this and other indications.FundingAtriva Therapeutics GmbH and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany.

Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major complication of COVID-19 and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess whether intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) could improve outcomes by reducing inflammation-mediated lung injury.MethodsIn this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, done at 43 centres in France, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h with PCR confirmed COVID-19 and associated moderate-to-severe ARDS to receive either IVIG (2 g/kg over 4 days) or placebo. Random assignment was done with a web-based system and was stratified according to the participating centre and the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation before inclusion in the trial (<12 h, 12-24 h, and >24-72 h), and treatment was administered within the first 96 h of invasive mechanical ventilation. To minimise the risk of adverse events, the IVIG administration was divided into four perfusions of 0·5 g/kg each administered over at least 8 hours. Patients in the placebo group received an equivalent volume of sodium chloride 0·9% (10 mL/kg) over the same period. The primary outcome was the number of ventilation-free days by day 28, assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350580.FindingsBetween April 3, and October 20, 2020, 146 patients (43 [29%] women) were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned: 69 (47%) patients to the IVIG group and 77 (53%) to the placebo group. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistical difference in the median number of ventilation-free days at day 28 between the IVIG group (0·0 [IQR 0·0-8·0]) and the placebo group (0·0 [0·0-6·0]; difference estimate 0·0 [0·0-0·0]; p=0·21). Serious adverse events were more frequent in the IVIG group (78 events in 22 [32%] patients) than in the placebo group (47 events in 15 [20%] patients; p=0·089).InterpretationIn patients with COVID-19 who received invasive mechanical ventilation for moderate-to-severe ARDS, IVIG did not improve clinical outcomes at day 28 and tended to be associated with an increased frequency of serious adverse events, although not significant. The effect of IVIGs on earlier disease stages of COVID-19 should be assessed in future trials.FundingProgramme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique.